Jump to content


Photo

The GM's Court


  • Please log in to reply
2956 replies to this topic

#1 Centurius

Centurius

    Una salus victis

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,726 posts
  • Nation Name:Kanteero
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox

Posted 24 September 2011 - 12:34 PM

Note: The GMs want this to be an active, involved Court. Without community involvement we will not have community resolvement. Anyone can post here at will as long as it has to do with rules or disputes.

Definition of a GM

As hawk began in his own definition, the Game Masters (GMs) are CNRP players appointed by the Cyber Nations Forums moderating staff to apply the CNRP community rules. They represent the moderation staff within CNRP. GM's do not create rules, as they are not a triumvirate (or a duumvirate, or an autocrat). However, the rules can be ambiguous, as in reality they are not a centralized set of policies, but a loose network of customs, procedures, written and unwritten guidelines, and to some degree precedents. Many disputes within CNRP, as it is a competitive atmosphere, arise from this ambiguity. Therefore to apply the rules, the duty of interpretations is also left to the GM. Hawk himself described this by referring to the GM as a judge or an arbiter. This is a functional and a reasonable definition, so I continue to maintain it. It is from this definition, that scope and the role of the GM can be derived.

Sitting GM's:
Cemturius

The Shammy Socialist

Tidy Bowl Man


Dispute Resolution

If a dispute occurs, be it a disagreement in the rules, disagreement in interpretation, claims of abuse, or any other incident whereby one party feels wronged by another the first step which should be attempted is a private negotiation between the two sides. This can be carried out however one sees fit (formal, informal, pm, query, thread post ect). The point of this is to get the two adversaries talking and to see if some sort of common ground can be reached without the need out outside intervention. Often this can be mutually beneficial as it does not always have to strictly conform to the rules of CNRP and the complexities and rigidity of the structure of rules often cannot make room for the circumstantial details of each case.

If negotiation fails, then please post in this thread (the GM court) linking specifically to the relevant posts which the dispute concerns. Provide a short description of the dispute. At this point the evaluating GM can examine the situation and if the verdict seems apparent, they can make a ruling prior to any case. (Example 1: someone deploy's a giant space laser to attack ground targets. Clearly this is outlawed and there is firm precedent to establish it, no drawn out case is necessary. Example 2: Someone overtly godmodes, it is fairly established what godmoding is no drawn out process is required. Example 3: Someone Rp's in your territory without your permission, again obvious and clearly illegal.) If however, the verdict is not apparent, a new thread will be opened by a GM to address the dispute, you, the initiator will be given the opportunity to provide the absolute best possible argument for why you think you are correct. It is your responsibility to provide us with the facts, evidence, logical appeals, and other appeals that supports your side. After this post the other person should compile the best case they possibly can supporting their side. They should also address errors in their opponents and in general refute the other side thoroughly. The person who initiated GM resolution will then be given a chance to respond to the refutation of their case and to refute the case of the second party. At this point third parties to the dispute who would like to make input are welcome to jump in and the original parties can continue to defend and attack eachother's positions. The GM who opened the topic will review this thread and render a decision (based on the arguments made and the evidence provided) in the GM court providing reasoning for the decision. This decision will be generally final, except within extreme cases where the decision itself is so beyond any level of justification that no rational individual could have condoned it. In such cases the other non-participating GM's may initiate a community poll to overturn the ruling.

Should the initiator or second party refuse to participate in the dispute resolution process, a decision will still be made on the basis of the participating party's posts, as well as any third party input. In such a case the non-participating party has foregone their opportunity to present their case to us. If they do not like the decision that comes back, we cannot be blamed or faulted for whatever impact the lack of their input has. Our decision will not necessarily be a default judgement favoring the participating side, but we will in all likelihood lack the full details of the non-participants side, (as only they fully know the details of what they posted).

If the GM`s see a violation of the rules that nobody comes forward about, then it is still up to the GM`s to fix said violation. Some of us in the community favor proactive GM`s and others favor laid-back ones, and for all intents and purposes you get the best of both worlds with the current, sitting GM`s.


Outcome Determination

Types of Outcome:
Affirmation: Agreement with initiator.
Negation: Agreement with the second party.
Double Negation: Disagreement with both parties.

Result (prescription):
Wiping of actions deemed illegal thus resolving the dispute.
Upholding of the disputed actions leaving the status quo as it is.
Designating an award which resolves the dispute.

Most of the disputes involving GM's require the employment of their interpretive powers. To make this process (at least for myself) more transparent these are the three core questions I ask myself and I attempt to determine when weighing a decision.

1) Is the meaning apparent in the formulation of the rule? In other words is its meaning obvious.

2) Is there a precedent for this case? Beyond that is this precedent fair and reasonable? I find tradition to personally be a deplorable justification for doing anything. As humans our history has been one of various parties mastering and dominating one another, though the way in which we go about this has become increasingly more abstract and complicated our history is littered with death, slavery, and 'injustice'. So before I pass the buck to my predecessors I do always check to see if the precedent in question is equitable. It is also worth noting that the GM who made the decision may have been narrowly focused and that they did not or could not predict the ultimately uses and results of their original ruling. Context is important so I consider that as well.

3)If no such meaning is obvious, and if no reasonable precedent is available, I simply assess what the best interpretation would be.

Compilation of GM/Moderator Rulings

1. Custom aircraft: 1) All custom aircraft used in combat must have stats accompanying them which are reviewable and accessible before they are used in combat. These stats must be reasonably comprehensive.
2) All custom aircraft which are employing yet to be serviced technology must be defendable by some semi-mature science and links which can show there is a reasonable chance to see it in production service by your tech year capped of course at 2031.
3) While all aspect ultra stealth aircraft and hypersonic aircraft are feasible by advanced nations, it is not feasible to have aircraft that do both of these "near perfect"
4) No uber cloak (all aspect detection proof) can be employed by a player, active camouflage is hereby banned.
5) No materials which allow for ultra light, ultra strong, with huge payloads (ones which exceed current weapon capacity of equal size by multiples, for example the T-50 currently has the largest internal weapons bay of fifth generation aircraft, a tactical aircraft of this size could not weigh half as much and carry 20 internal weapons as opposed to the T-50s ten). Additionally these materials may not be used as justification to make range levels which seem unreasonably high with compared to current top tier aircraft of similar size and role.

2. Nuclear attacks on nations under 20k NS in-game: Any nation under 20k NS in-game can not be attacked with nuclear weapons unless they are 1. developing or own chemical, biological, area-effect EMP weapons, 2. own nukes and/or a Manhattan Project in-game, 3. ask a larger player to nuke someone.

3. In cases where GMs are in conflict with each other, or are otherwise compromised, GMs may now elect amongst themselves with a unanimous vote a temporary neutral fourth GM who's sole responsibility will be arbitrating that particular dispute.


5. GMs involved in a war will not be allowed to roll during that war unless specifically requested by the opposing side to said GM.


Conclusion

As a general summation:

-No Ruling will be given on an unclear issue without all sides being publicly heard from.

-It is the responsibility of interested parties to provide the evidence and arguments necessary to understanding a case. We cannot be expected to do the investigative leg work over an issue that those who are actually involved in understand the best. The most efficient way to obtain the facts is for those who know them to come forward.

-The GM`s will not take any abuse. There will be disagreements, and if you find that you disagree with us then politely point out what you believe to be flaws. Any unwarranted abuse will not be looked kindly upon.

-Many GM discussions are done on irc, upon request full logs on a specific subject will be provided.


Edited by Centurius, 05 May 2013 - 11:41 AM.


#2 TheShammySocialist

TheShammySocialist

    Not even in the face of Armageddon

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,567 posts
  • Nation Name:Atlantik Clique
  • Alliance Name:Green Protection Agency

Posted 25 September 2011 - 09:41 AM

Requesting a ruling for an auto-advance on this thread, as Cochin and Lynneth, as well as JEDCJT has proceeded with moves against the Holy American Empire. Noting that, I am requesting an auto-advance.

#3 Centurius

Centurius

    Una salus victis

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,726 posts
  • Nation Name:Kanteero
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox

Posted 25 September 2011 - 09:47 AM

Requesting a ruling for an auto-advance on this thread, as Cochin and Lynneth, as well as JEDCJT has proceeded with moves against the Holy American Empire. Noting that, I am requesting an auto-advance.


Considering the lack of an ic reply while maintaining a proven activity on the forums themselves the request for an auto advance is granted. Please rp reasonable losses.

#4 Lynneth

Lynneth

    El Presidente | ಠ_ಠ

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,236 posts
  • Nation Name:Saboria
  • Alliance Name:WTF

Posted 25 September 2011 - 11:06 AM

Actually, the advance by me and Cochin was approved by Shadow via PM. In addition, it's technically not an autoadvance - just the first attacks.
He told us he could facilitate the war this weekend. :V

#5 Shadowsage

Shadowsage

    Imperator

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,368 posts
  • Nation Name:Daorim
  • Alliance Name:World Task Force

Posted 25 September 2011 - 12:49 PM

Yeah, I'm getting to the responses. It's a bit slow going since I have exams to study for and (at least) three separate advances to contend with.

#6 Centurius

Centurius

    Una salus victis

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,726 posts
  • Nation Name:Kanteero
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox

Posted 03 October 2011 - 11:17 AM

OP updated to reflect current GM team.

#7 Triyun

Triyun

    Gathering all Armies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,326 posts
  • Nation Name:New Triyunica
  • Alliance Name:GPA

Posted 03 October 2011 - 01:21 PM

In consultation with my fellow GMs I am posting the following new rules regarding the use of custom air craft:

1) All custom aircraft used in combat must have stats accompanying them which are reviewable and accessible before they are used in combat. These stats must be reasonably comprehensive.
2) All custom aircraft which are employing yet to be serviced technology must be defendable by some semi-mature science and links which can show there is a reasonable chance to see it in production service by your tech year capped of course at 2031.
3) While all aspect ultra stealth aircraft and hypersonic aircraft are feasible by advanced nations, it is not feasible to have aircraft that do both of these "near perfect"
4) No uber cloak (all aspect detection proof) can be employed by a player, active camouflage is hereby banned.
5) No materials which allow for ultra light, ultra strong, with huge payloads (ones which exceed current weapon capacity of equal size by multiples, for example the T-50 currently has the largest internal weapons bay of fifth generation aircraft, a tactical aircraft of this size could not weigh half as much and carry 20 internal weapons as opposed to the T-50s ten). Additionally these materials may not be used as justification to make range levels which seem unreasonably high with compared to current top tier aircraft of similar size and role.

These guidelines we feel are fair and will help keep a growing gap between mid tier and top tier nations. GM units neither shall be immune from these rulings. All stat changes to bring these units into compliance may have immediate IC effect. That is to say you can't take someone's air force out of commission for 3 months by challenging them in here and force them to ground it and do maintenance.

Current suspected violators of these rules will be contacted over the next few weeks to initiate changes and defend their units in an amicable and professional manner.

It is important to note, future units are not going to need to be pre-GM approved, but can be placed under review just like in times passed. This will just give everyone a better idea of the guidelines we will be using. Other types of units may come under similar scrutiny if we see a problem or there is a need.

#8 Centurius

Centurius

    Una salus victis

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,726 posts
  • Nation Name:Kanteero
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox

Posted 03 October 2011 - 01:26 PM

Confirming the ruling, also in line with the existence of a dedicated GM channel the team will as of now offer relevant logs to discussions and rulings upon request by any member of the community.

#9 Justinian the Mighty

Justinian the Mighty

    All will become one with Mother Russia!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,864 posts
  • Nation Name:Slovorussia
  • Alliance Name:North Atlantic Defense Coalition

Posted 03 October 2011 - 06:31 PM

Can you post a link to the community discussion that led to this ruling?

#10 Triyun

Triyun

    Gathering all Armies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,326 posts
  • Nation Name:New Triyunica
  • Alliance Name:GPA

Posted 03 October 2011 - 06:44 PM

The Community has voted for tech restrictions (i.e. the time scale), same way under the old 2020 one lasers onboard planes were banned. We as GMs chose to setup these rules before we struck down one specific plane which may well violate the 2031 time scale.

GMs decided to contact the specific plane privately but here is the rest of the log:

Triyun: actually
[2:48pm] Triyun: I have a proposal
[2:48pm] Triyun: before we go after just one aircraft
[2:48pm] Centurius: I'm listening
[2:49pm] Triyun: and I know one of mine could get hit by this. If you fly a custom unit, have some general outline of what it can do first of all. Secondly we should base it on what is feasibly possible as a production aircraft by 2030, we know roughly what that is today I think.
[2:49pm] Triyun: There is some novelty involved
[2:50pm] Centurius: I'd say we need to cut down on the metamaterials
[2:50pm] Centurius: and active camouflage on aircraft seems unlikely on a production model
[2:51pm] Triyun: mmm thats probably true
[2:51pm] cochin: mmhmm
[2:51pm] Triyun: same with hypersonics (save for interceptors, not air superiority)
[2:51pm] Centurius: yeah, well people could have hypersonic fighters
[2:51pm] Centurius: but it'd be either hypersonic or stealth
[2:51pm] Triyun: yes
[2:51pm] Centurius: not both at the same time
[2:52pm] cochin: point
[2:52pm] Triyun: so
[2:52pm] Triyun: do you want to post up these general outlines and then PM members individually?
[2:53pm] Centurius: cochin what's your take on it?
[2:53pm] cochin: I agree with the point on hypersonics/stealth
[2:53pm] cochin: and yeah active camouflaged seems not possible but of course thermal shielding is possible
[2:54pm] Triyun: I think its possible for turbofan units
[2:54pm] Triyun: the question is Mach 3+ to a large extent
[2:55pm] cochin: yeah, the exhaust thermal signature would be quite considerable
[2:55pm] Triyun: yeah
[2:55pm] Triyun: not to mention the friction
[2:55pm] Triyun: on the body
[2:56pm] Centurius: exhaust shielding is okay cochin
[2:56pm] Centurius: I strictly am referring to active camouflage
[2:56pm] cochin: yes
[2:58pm] Triyun: mmm
[2:59pm] Triyun: So for rules:
[2:59pm] Triyun: 1) If you fly customs you need to have them written down somewhere before you use them in battle.
[2:59pm] cochin: +1
[3:00pm] Triyun: 2) Aircraft must be shown to meet production feasibility by 2030 based on some substantive evidence.
[3:00pm] Triyun: aka
[3:00pm] Triyun: Mael can't say
[3:00pm] Triyun: he came up with something brilliant
[3:00pm] Triyun:
[3:00pm] cochin: yeah, at least some RL tech link should be presented
[3:00pm] Triyun: 3) While stealth and hypersonic are both feasible, they cannot be perfect together.
[3:01pm] cochin nods
[3:01pm] Triyun: 4) No uber cloak (all aspect detection proof) or active camouflage
[3:02pm] Triyun: Also regarding some RL tech link, I'd like to also say that it should be semi-mature tech. Like it shouldn't be a novel one time laboratory thing
[3:02pm] Triyun: Oh and one last thing: No ultra light ultra strong materials that allow for unreasonable levels of armament and range
[3:03pm] Centurius: I agree
[3:03pm] Centurius: with the entire set
[3:03pm] cochin: me too
[3:03pm] Triyun: ok
[3:03pm] Centurius: well Triyun, feel free to post it up
[3:03pm] Triyun: will do
[3:04pm] cochin: of course if people feel that their technology is being opposed under this ruling they should be given the opportunity to present their argument before it is banned.
[3:04pm] cochin: after all there may be technological advancements we may not know about
[3:04pm] Centurius: Of course
[3:04pm] Triyun: yes
[3:04pm] Centurius: all gm rulings are challengeable
[3:05pm] cochin: The rules would come into force but individual cases should be given chance to present their arguments before rulings made on them
[3:06pm] Centurius: yeah
[3:07pm] Centurius: also as a general rule I think we should allow people to ask for relevant logs from this channel upon request
[3:08pm] cochin: okay, but I wont be able to make or maintain logs. mibbit,
[3:08pm] Centurius: yeah no problem
[3:08pm] Centurius: I have mIRC
[3:21pm] Triyun: http://forums.cybern...dpost&p=2814727



#11 Centurius

Centurius

    Una salus victis

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,726 posts
  • Nation Name:Kanteero
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox

Posted 03 October 2011 - 07:08 PM

The rule was already there, this is a gm clarification on that rule.

#12 Executive Minister

Executive Minister

    Be prepared...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts
  • Nation Name:Witty Name Here

Posted 03 October 2011 - 08:56 PM

1) All custom aircraft used in combat must have stats accompanying them which are reviewable and accessible before they are used in combat. These stats must be reasonably comprehensive.


Excellent, I agree.

2) All custom aircraft which are employing yet to be serviced technology must be defendable by some semi-mature science and links which can show there is a reasonable chance to see it in production service by your tech year capped of course at 2031.


Enforcing the tech year cap with actual scientific quasi-proofs is a move in the right direction. However, when you mean must be defendable does that mean only when someone questions the aircraft's feasibility? Or should they be posted with the accompanying stats as fluff? Links with naked stats?

3) While all aspect ultra stealth aircraft and hypersonic aircraft are feasible by advanced nations, it is not feasible to have aircraft that do both of these "near perfect"

To be honest, all aspect ultra stealth alone isn't quite possible at all. All aircraft will leave vortex trails in their wake, and infrared emissions from skin friction (while more prevalent during higher speeds) are still detectable by specialized EO/IRST sensors.

4) No uber cloak (all aspect detection proof) can be employed by a player, active camouflage is hereby banned.


You mean on aircraft? Or active camoflage at all? I really do think such a blanket ban (something of this magnitude would be railguns/lasers/mechs) should have had a discussion of sorts before being made a rule. Does this backing of scientific quasi-proofs clause apply here?

5) No materials which allow for ultra light, ultra strong, with huge payloads (ones which exceed current weapon capacity of equal size by multiples, for example the T-50 currently has the largest internal weapons bay of fifth generation aircraft, a tactical aircraft of this size could not weigh half as much and carry 20 internal weapons as opposed to the T-50s ten). Additionally these materials may not be used as justification to make range levels which seem unreasonably high with compared to current top tier aircraft of similar size and role.

These guidelines we feel are fair and will help keep a growing gap between mid tier and top tier nations. GM units neither shall be immune from these rulings. All stat changes to bring these units into compliance may have immediate IC effect. That is to say you can't take someone's air force out of commission for 3 months by challenging them in here and force them to ground it and do maintenance.

Current suspected violators of these rules will be contacted over the next few weeks to initiate changes and defend their units in an amicable and professional manner.

It is important to note, future units are not going to need to be pre-GM approved, but can be placed under review just like in times passed. This will just give everyone a better idea of the guidelines we will be using. Other types of units may come under similar scrutiny if we see a problem or there is a need.


These dialogues will be public in either the GM's Court or the tech help/complaints thread, right? You'd kill two birds with one stone, making violators explain themselves and change if required, AND give everyone a better idea of the guidelines you're using.

#13 Triyun

Triyun

    Gathering all Armies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,326 posts
  • Nation Name:New Triyunica
  • Alliance Name:GPA

Posted 03 October 2011 - 09:08 PM

Enforcing the tech year cap with actual scientific quasi-proofs is a move in the right direction. However, when you mean must be defendable does that mean only when someone questions the aircraft's feasibility? Or should they be posted with the accompanying stats as fluff? Links with naked stats?


If you are posting something more controversial links would be helpful. But they will be asked if something is challenged.


To be honest, all aspect ultra stealth alone isn't quite possible at all. All aircraft will leave vortex trails in their wake, and infrared emissions from skin friction (while more prevalent during higher speeds) are still detectable by specialized EO/IRST sensors.


All Aspect Ultra Stealth is an industry term, it doesn't cover completely IR masking.



You mean on aircraft? Or active camoflage at all? I really do think such a blanket ban (something of this magnitude would be railguns/lasers/mechs) should have had a discussion of sorts before being made a rule. Does this backing of scientific quasi-proofs clause apply here?


If you have something to refute it feel free to post it. This applies to aircraft. Active camouflage on tanks I am aware of, and thus wouldn't be covered by the ban.

These dialogues will be public in either the GM's Court or the tech help/complaints thread, right? You'd kill two birds with one stone, making violators explain themselves and change if required, AND give everyone a better idea of the guidelines you're using.


It depends on where people wish to discuss something, for convenience sake many like to use IRC and we're not adverse to using the medium. In such case dialogues can be posted on request.

#14 Executive Minister

Executive Minister

    Be prepared...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts
  • Nation Name:Witty Name Here

Posted 03 October 2011 - 09:21 PM

If you are posting something more controversial links would be helpful. But they will be asked if something is challenged.


Gotcha.

All Aspect Ultra Stealth is an industry term, it doesn't cover completely IR masking.


That's what I thought.


If you have something to refute it feel free to post it. This applies to aircraft. Active camouflage on tanks I am aware of, and thus wouldn't be covered by the ban.


For aircraft? No, not really. I use a system thats pretty much used for anti-optical targeting, wouldn't make it blind to the eye perse. Basically to flicker against staring arrays.

But yeah, I thought this was a ban on active camo period.


It depends on where people wish to discuss something, for convenience sake many like to use IRC and we're not adverse to using the medium. In such case dialogues can be posted on request.


Gotcha.

#15 Michael McBride

Michael McBride

    No matching nation.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,138 posts
  • Nation Name:Pravus Ingruo

Posted 03 October 2011 - 11:41 PM

I'm asking for a hold to be put in place on PresidentDavid's movements in the Pillar of Autumn thread (http://forums.cybern...howtopic=105724). He has twice now done multiple moves without allowing other players to respond. There is simply no concievable way that he has fully pacified a state which just had open rebellion in less than a day and before my troops which are on the way even arrive. I'm not traversing an ocean here, I'm skimming the Gulf of Mexico, already had troops in the area, and already had resources in the area. I already mentioned it to him once that multiple moves would not be recognized, and that has been ignored, so now I am asking the GMs to place a hold on his movements. Some of us have a life and work overnight and only have a certain time of the day to post. That should not be abused to whip out 4 posts in a 4 hour span while others are sleeping.

#16 Triyun

Triyun

    Gathering all Armies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,326 posts
  • Nation Name:New Triyunica
  • Alliance Name:GPA

Posted 03 October 2011 - 11:54 PM

Done.

#17 PresidentDavid

PresidentDavid

    Outstanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,487 posts
  • Nation Name:Republic of Texas

Posted 04 October 2011 - 05:13 AM

I'm asking for a hold to be put in place on PresidentDavid's movements in the Pillar of Autumn thread (http://forums.cybern...howtopic=105724). He has twice now done multiple moves without allowing other players to respond. There is simply no concievable way that he has fully pacified a state which just had open rebellion in less than a day and before my troops which are on the way even arrive. I'm not traversing an ocean here, I'm skimming the Gulf of Mexico, already had troops in the area, and already had resources in the area. I already mentioned it to him once that multiple moves would not be recognized, and that has been ignored, so now I am asking the GMs to place a hold on his movements. Some of us have a life and work overnight and only have a certain time of the day to post. That should not be abused to whip out 4 posts in a 4 hour span while others are sleeping.



Done.


K, I am on a direct border with Louisiana. I sent 30,000 troops in. He recognized it. I said where the 30,000 troops went he didn't recognize it. I am trying to understand the logic in that. If you don't want to recognize the other 30,000 I sent from Dallas to the north then that is fine. But fail to see how saying where my troops went with RP is somehow overstepping my bounds when it is already accepted they are there.

#18 Michael McBride

Michael McBride

    No matching nation.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,138 posts
  • Nation Name:Pravus Ingruo

Posted 04 October 2011 - 06:30 AM

K, I am on a direct border with Louisiana. I sent 30,000 troops in. He recognized it. I said where the 30,000 troops went he didn't recognize it. I am trying to understand the logic in that. If you don't want to recognize the other 30,000 I sent from Dallas to the north then that is fine. But fail to see how saying where my troops went with RP is somehow overstepping my bounds when it is already accepted they are there.


It's not you saying where they are. It's you saying they are EVERYWHERE and have pacified THE ENTIRE STATE. You know how people Louisiana has (I'm going by RL census numbers since Shammy hadn't RP'd anything different)? 4,533,372. You sent in 30,000 troops. That's 151 citizens (some of whom had just supported an open rebellion and let's not forget the Cajun Federation's history/problems with terrorism) per soldier. So unless your dudes are super soldiers, you're not going to be everywhere and pacify everything in a day. Also, if you did go everywhere, then you're stupid. Now you're vastly outnumbered, a foreign power without the correct resources, and spread very, very thin. Didn't you wonder, even for a second, why I sent 220,000 troops into the area? Because it isn't pacified. And this is an area that I am familiar with, that my country has pacified and protected before. Long before you were even around. Let's ask ourselves a logical question: who would the people trust more? A stable, older nation that previously protected them through prosperity before granting them independence that unfortunately didn't work out, or a brand new, technologically deficient nation that is woefully under prepared to serve their needs? Obviously there is a problem there. A disconnect.

I accepted that your troops are already in the STATE of Louisiana. Did I accept that they are everywhere? No.

#19 Triyun

Triyun

    Gathering all Armies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,326 posts
  • Nation Name:New Triyunica
  • Alliance Name:GPA

Posted 04 October 2011 - 02:13 PM

PD you have a significant time advantage in occupying the state that PI does not. However that does not mean you can do so completely without giving PI a chance to intervene. At minimum he could use air power to destroy bridges and other transit to retard your progress. I am not sure if he'd do that but you need to give him a chance to respond rather than claim complete pacification.

That said PI's previous claims versus PDs current claims are not going to enjoy any special validity amongst the people of the former Cajun Federation. Neither side can claim loyalty of the citizenry, instead simply RP the contest out.

#20 PresidentDavid

PresidentDavid

    Outstanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,487 posts
  • Nation Name:Republic of Texas

Posted 04 October 2011 - 03:15 PM

PD you have a significant time advantage in occupying the state that PI does not. However that does not mean you can do so completely without giving PI a chance to intervene. At minimum he could use air power to destroy bridges and other transit to retard your progress. I am not sure if he'd do that but you need to give him a chance to respond rather than claim complete pacification.

That said PI's previous claims versus PDs current claims are not going to enjoy any special validity amongst the people of the former Cajun Federation. Neither side can claim loyalty of the citizenry, instead simply RP the contest out.


Okay then thanks. I think me and PI can work it out from here. I don't want the land there is just something I want to do there. I'll message him and we'll talk.

EDIT: I was just thinking that it takes about 3.5 hours to get from Houston to Lafayette and about 5 or 6 to get from Houston to Baton Rouge. With the time I posted in between the posts I figured in RP time that was enough to get there. I apologize. I thought y'all were arguing that I didn't give my troops enough time to set up but the argument is that I didn't give chance PI to reply back. I see now.

Edited by PresidentDavid, 04 October 2011 - 03:36 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users